PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
The Federal Circuit Criticizes A PTAB Partial Institution

The Federal Circuit Criticizes A PTAB Partial Institution

by David Maiorana | Dec 13, 2017 | Federal Circuit, Trial Institution

By Dave Maiorana The PTAB’s practice of partially instituting IPRs has been in the news lately, with Jones Day recently arguing against that practice at the Supreme Court on behalf of the SAS Institute (“SAS”).  On December 5, 2017, the week after the Supreme Court...
PTAB Designates Three Informative Opinions Which Address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

PTAB Designates Three Informative Opinions Which Address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 7, 2017 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman, Case IPR2016-01571 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper 10) In this decision, the Board denied...
PTAB Sheds Light on Role of Prior Art in Discretionary Denial

PTAB Sheds Light on Role of Prior Art in Discretionary Denial

by Joe Sauer | Nov 7, 2017 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

by Seth M. Bostrom and Joseph M. Sauer The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated as informative three cases involving discretionary denial of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).  We previously profiled the case of Hospira, Inc. v....
PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 27, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative.  Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below.  We previously reported on Hospira, Inc. v....
Timely Joinder Cannot Save Untimely IPR When Nothing to Join

Timely Joinder Cannot Save Untimely IPR When Nothing to Join

by Cary Miller | Oct 3, 2017 | Trial Institution

By Lin Yu, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. In IPR2017-01054 and IPR2017-01055 (Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Hospira Inc.), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,158 and 8,338,470, because Petitioner Fresenius filed the IPR petitions...
Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

by Carl Kukkonen | Oct 2, 2017 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen and Amanda Leckman On September 13, 2017, the PTAB, a five-judge panel, granted a petition to institute an inter partes review brought by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) regarding U.S....
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit
  • Federal Circuit Appeal
  • Final Written Decisions
  • Joinder
  • Motions Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Petitions
  • PGR
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preliminary Responses
  • Prior Art Issues
  • PTAB News
  • PTAB Trial Basics
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Request for Reconsideration
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Time Limits
  • Trial Institution
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

    • Privacy
    • X
    • RSS

    The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or its clients. The posts and information provided are for general information purposes and are not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.